Om Prakash Agarwal Since Deceased Thr. Lrs. & Ors. vs Vishan Dayal Rajpoot & Anr.

Jurisdiction of Additional District Judge (as Small Causes Court) – To decide the cases pending before it – After amendment by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Suit seeking decree of eviction, rent and damages – Filed before Small Causes Court [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] – Suit transferred to Additional District Judge on the ground that value of the suit property being Rs.27,775/- was more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court i.e. Rs.25,000/- – During pendency of the suit before Additional District Judge, by Amendment Act, pecuniary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court was raised from Rs.25,000 to Rs. One lakh – Defendants did not raise any objection as to maintainability of the suit before Addl. District Judge due to lack of jurisdiction in view of the Amendment Act – Suit was decided on merit and was decreed – Defendants filed Revision – High Court allowed the Revision holding that order passed by Addl. District Judge was without jurisdiction – On appeal, held:In view of s. 15 of CPC read with provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and Bengal, Agra Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, legislative scheme is clear that small cause cases upto value of Rs. 1 lakh should be taken cognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judge and cases having value of more than Rs. 1 lakh by Disrtrict Judge/Addl. District Judge having power of Small Cause Court – Section 15(2) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides that suit shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes – The word cognizable takes into its fold institution, hearing and decision of a case cognizable by it – The statement of objects and reasons explains the reason for increase of pecuniary jurisdiction, but use of words “for institution” therein cannot control the express language of the statutory provisions – Thus, Addl. District Judge did not have jurisdiction to try the present case – However, in view of the provision u/s. 21 of CPC and in view of the fact that no objection was taken by defendant to the jurisdiction of Addl. District Judge before that Court, he is precluded from raising such objection in Revision – Therefore, even though Addl. District Judge was not competent to decide the suit, no interference was called for in its judgment in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction by High Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss. 15 and 21 – Provisional Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 – Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015.

Interpretation of Statutes:

Rules of interpretation – Held: Legislative provisions have to be interpreted in a manner, which may advance the object and purpose of the Act.

Statement of objects and reasons – As an aid to interpret the statute – Held: Statement of objects and reasons of the statute can be looked into only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent only when the meaning of statute by its ordinary language is obscure and ambiguous – Words in statements of objects and reasons, cannot control the express language of the statutory provisions. Judicial Propriety:

Conflicting views by Single Judge Benches of High Court – Propriety – Held: Instead of giving conflicting view, it is better to achieve certainty by an authoritative opinion by High Court.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Small Cause Courts were envisaged to be Courts, which may expeditiously dispose of small causes. Small causes were contemplated to be disposed of by the Courts by following the procedure less cumbersome as compared to those applicable in the regular civil courts. By U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, the cases by a lessor for eviction of lessee and for recovery of rent in respect of the period of occupation was also taken in fold of small causes, which could be taken cognizance by Small Causes Court after amendment of Clause (4) of Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The amendment made in Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 empowered the State Government to confer upon any District Judge or Additional District Judge power of Judge of Small Causes Court “for the trial of suits irrespective of their value by the lessor for the eviction of lessee…..” The above amendment was necessitated since the Court of Small Causes presided by Civil Judge could have entertained small causes suits having value of only five thousand rupees. As per amendment by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 cases by lessor for the eviction of lessee having valuation of more than five thousand rupees could not have been taken cognizance by Civil Judges, who were designated as Judges of Small Causes Court to take up such cases. When Legislature treated all suits by the lessor for the eviction of lessee from a building as a “Small Cause Suit”, a forum had to be created for deciding such cases as small cause cases. [Para 30][72-A-E]

1.2 The expression “irrespective of their value” used in Section 25 as amended was with clear intention that irrespective of the value, the cases filed by the lessor for the eviction of lessee should be treated as small causes cases and should be dealt as a small cause case. By subsequent amendment, the Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge became empowered to decide cases of small cause upto twenty-five thousand rupees and cases above twenty-five thousand rupees by lessor against lessee were to be taken cognizance by Court of Additional District Judges. The legislative Scheme contains a clear dichotomy between cases, which could have been taken cognizance by small causes courts presided by Civil Judge and those of small cause cases presided by District Judge or Additional District Judge. The dividing line was only valuation of small cause cases relating to suits by lessor against the lessee. Necessity to empower the District Judge/Additional District Judge to decide small cause cases relating to eviction by lessor against lessee was with the above intent. The Legislature never intended that all cases pertaining to suits by lessor against the lessee of any valuation could be filed in any Small Causes Court. [Para 30][72-E-H; 73-A]

1.3 It is true that District Judge or Additional District Judge functioning as Small Causes Courts can take cognizance of all suits irrespective of their value. But use of the words “irrespective of their value” was in contradiction of the pecuniary value, which was given to Judge of Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge. The fact that District Judge or Additional District Judge can take cognizance of all suits irrespective of their value shall not whittle down or dilute the line of separation between two courts in taking cognizance of small cause cases. This will not empower them to take cognizance of cases, which, according to statutory Scheme can be taken only by small causes courts presided by Civil Judge. [Para 31][73-B-C]

1.4 As per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suit of less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation has to be instituted in Small Causes Court presided by Civil Judge. Although, District Judge or Additional District Judge has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction but under the legislative Scheme, the suit is not to be taken cognizance by the District Judge or Additional District Judge, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. Even if Section 15 of C.P.C. is a provision, which regulates the institution of suits and does not affect the jurisdiction of Courts, reading the provision of Section 15 alongwith relevant provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the legislative Scheme is clear that small cause cases should be taken cognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judge upto the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh and cases having valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh by District Judge or Additional District Judge, who have been invested with the power of Small Cause Courts. Unless the above legislative intent and Scheme is followed, there shall be confusion and inconsistency. The legislative provisions have to be interpreted in a manner, which may advance the object and purpose of the Act. When clear dichotomy regarding taking cognizance of small causes suits presided by Civil Judge and by District Judge or Additional District Judge have been provided for, the said dichotomy and separation to take cognizance of cases has to be followed to further the object and purpose of legislation. [Para 35][78-D-H]

1.5 When the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge could no longer take cognizance of small cause suits of having less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation, it was no longer in the competence of Small Cause Court presided by District Judge or Additional District Judge to proceed to decide the suit of having valuation of less than Rs. 1 lakh. Proper course was to transfer the cases before a competent court to decide the suits. [Para 36][79-B-C]

1.6 Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 bears the title “Cognizance of Suits by Courts of Small Causes”. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 provides that a Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suit excepted from the cognizance of Court of Small Causes. Sub-section (2)(as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) provides that all suits of the civil nature of which the value does not exceed Rs.5,000/- shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes. As per the proviso to sub-section (2) in relation to suits by lessor for the eviction of lessee from building after determination of lease, the reference of Rs.5,000/- shall be construed as a reference to Rs.25,000/-. The keyword in the provision is “shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes.” The word ‘Cognizable’ is a word of wide import. It takes into its fold institution, hearing and decision of a case cognizable by it. [Paras 38 and 42][79-E-G; 80-G]

Black’s Law Dictionary; Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar – referred to.

1.7 When the plain word in the statute i.e. Section 15(2) uses the word “cognizable” “statements of objects and reasons” which uses the word “institution” shall not whittle down, the word ‘cognizable’ as used in Section 15(2). It is true that statement of objects noticed that value of subject matters brought to the courts has increased substantially, hence, pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts as well those of Small Causes Courts in State of Uttar Pradesh requires to be raised for the institution of civil suits and appeals. The amendment has raised pecuniary limits in Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The statement of objects and reasons explains the reason for increase of pecuniary jurisdiction but use of word ‘for institution’ in statement of object cannot control the express language of the statutory provisions. [Paras 42 and 43][81-A, E, F]

1.8 Statement of objects and reasons of the statute can be looked into only as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intent only when the meaning of statute by its ordinary language is obscure and ambiguous. [Para 44][81-G]

1.9 The statement of object of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 thus explains the reason for bringing the amendment for increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction but the word ‘institution’ used in statement of object shall not control the expressed language of Section 15. [Para 46][82-F-G]

1.10 The expression ‘cognizance’ used in Section 15 shall mean and include institution, hearing and decision of the case. When statute provides that cognizance of particular cause is to be taken by a particular court, no other court can take cognizance of the cause, since legislature never creates or provides for parallel jurisdiction in two different courts for taking cognizance of a cause. When Section 15 provides that all suits of civil nature of which the value does not exceed Rs.25,000/“shall be cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes”, the cognizance shall be taken by that very Court and no other Court. [Para 46][82-G-H; 83-A]

1.11 The proviso to sub-section (2) provides that figure of Rs.5,000/- shall be construed to Rs.25,000/-. By U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the figure of Rs.25,000/- stood substituted by Rs.1 lac. Reading sub-section(2) read with proviso and U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act), 2015 clearly means that Small Cause suits with valuation not exceeding Rs.1 lac shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes. [Para 47][83-B-C]

1.12 Additional District Judge to whom small causes suit in question was transferred since its valuation was more than Rs.25,000/- was not competent to take cognizance of the suit after U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment Act), 2015 w.e.f.07.12.2015, when the suit in question became cognizable by Small Causes Court i.e. Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division.[Para 47][83-C-D]

State of Himachal Pradesh v. M. P.Gupta (2004) 2 SCC

349 : 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 541; S. S. Bola v. B. D. Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522 : [1997] 2 Suppl. SCR 507; Subha Ram v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC

506 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 65 ; Bhaiji v. Sub-Divisional Officer, (2003) 1 SCC 692 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 116 – relied on.

Pankaj Hotel vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ 2017 – not approved.

Shobhit Nigam vs. Smt. Batulan and Another SCC Revision No. 278 of 2016 – partly approved.

M.P. Mishra vs. Sangam Lal Agarwal, AIR 1975

Allahabad 425 – referred to.

2.1 The policy underlying Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure is that when the case has been tried by a court on merits and the judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice. The provisions akin to Section 21 are also contained in Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 and Section

99 of Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 50][84-E-F]

2.2 It is apparent from the judgment of Additional District Judge, that no objection to the competence of Additional District Judge to decide the case was taken by any of the parties. No objection having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code comes into play. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides that no objection as to the competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. Sub-section (2) precludes the revisionist to raise any objection regarding competence of the court and further revisional court ought not to have allowed such objection regarding competence of Court of Additional District Judge to decide the suit. The respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed to turnround and contend that the court of Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise any objection regarding competence of court and allowed the matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the small cause suit by Additional District Judge, the tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent failure of justice. [Para 56][88-G-H; 89-A-D]

2.3 The High Court in the impugned judgment has not adverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section

21 contains a legislative policy which policy has an object and purpose. The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit on basis of technical objections. [Para 57][89-E]

2.4 Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislative policy which cannot be ignored or given a go-by by the litigants who challenges an unfavourable decision. Therefore, High Court committed error in allowing the Revision filed by the respondent tenant without taking into consideration Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. [Paras 59 and 61][90-B, D]

Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340 : [1955] SCR 117; R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC

130 : [1993] 1 SCR 455; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791 : [ 2007] 4 SCR 150; Subhash Mahadevasa Habib v. Nemasa

Ambasa Dharmadas (2007) 13 SCC 650 : [2007]

4 SCR 150 – relied on.

Tejumal v. Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392 – not approved.

Hiralal v. Kalinath and AIR 1963 SC 634, Bahrain Petroleum Co. v. P. J. Pappu and Another AIR (1962) SC 199 : [1962] SCR 747 – referred to.

3. Thus even when the court of Additional District Judge was not competent to decide the Small Causes Suit in question on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction is vested in Court of Small Causes i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015, no interference was called in the judgment of Additional District Judge in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction by High Court in view of the provisions of Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code. [Para 62][90-E]

4. It is always better to achieve certainty by an authoritative opinion by the High Court instead of giving conflicting views by different Single Judges which may confuse the litigants, lawyers and sub-ordinate courts in applying the law. [Para 48][83-F]